Title: The Cove Director: Louie Psihoyos Released: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The movie argues that we need to crack down better on illegal whale and dolphin fishing. This film is about the atrocities that happen to dolphins and porpoises all around the world. The film follows Richard O'Barry as he and a team of activists tear down the walls and expose Japan and their industry of dolphin hunting. Although most of the film takes place in Taiji, it is really about the overall problem of whale and dolphin fishing.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The first sustainability problem that I noticed while watching the film, besides the dolphin killing, was how Japan decorated their towns. Many towns involved in the dolphin and whale business have murals and art dedicated to how much they love the animals. They are deceiving the citizens of Japan into thinking that because they love whales so much the fishermen and government would never harm the animals on purpose. This is seen later when O'Barry interviews passersby in Tokyo and none of them knew anything about what was going on with the dolphins in Taiji and other parts of Japan.
As the film progressed the audience is able to learn more about Richard O'Barry, the leading activist in the film. As it turns out he was the person who was most responsible for starting the whole movement to capture dolphins for the entertainment industry. The modern image of dolphins did not develop until after the movie Flipper, for which O'Barry trained the dolphins. After Flipper's success more and more zoos, entertainment parks and movie sets around the world began requesting dolphins. This success with making money from selling dolphin and whale shows led to the need for Japan's dolphin market.
Although it is not a sustainability problem in the more traditional sense that we cannot do anything to change it, I would like to argue that the fact that dolphins and whales follow the same migratory route every year is a sustainability problem for them. It makes is much easier for humans to catch and kill them because their location at certain times of year is predictable. If dolphins instead took varying routes they would be harder to catch leading to fewer deaths per year. In this film the landscape of Taiji was a huge sustainability problem. If not for the landscaping and the hostility of the local fishermen the secret of Taiji's dolphin slaughters would have been able to be uncovered much sooner by activists. The activists also had to be careful not to do anything illegal while in Taiji due to the local government and police being so eager to rid foreigners from the areas around the dolphin killing areas.
The Japanese government also plays it's part in this story. They are the ones who are supporting and hiding this industry. They even went as far as to buy poorer nations' support in the IWC (International Whaling Commission). With their support they were able to delay new laws that prevented the killing of dolphins and they also have been attempting to reinstate the ability of countries to whale. The Japanese government also allows dolphin to be sold with or labeled as other, larger whales. This is not only bad for the whales but also dangerous to Japanese citizens. Ever since the Industrial Revolution mercury levels in the oceans have been increasing by 1-3% annually. As of now there are 2000ppm of mercury in dolphins. This can and has been proven to lead to mercury poisoning.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? What I really liked about this film compared to the other ones that I have watched was that, for the most part, this film was easy to watch. I found that they not only managed to get a very important issue across but that they did it in a more mainstream. Besides having better film editors and a higher budget I really liked how O’Barry would explained how he transformed into an activist. It made him seem less radical and more ‘normal’. It also helped build his ethos, giving the audience more reason to come to see from his point of view.
As O’Barry had predicted the combined audio and video footage was what got me most turned towards his cause. If they had only been able to show the footage that they were capturing at the beginning of the film I probably wouldn’t have bothered to rise to their call to action. But by being able to plant the hidden cameras as well as the underwater one I found that the viewer gets the whole picture. Because of this I both texted the number at the end of the film as well as visited the website to see what all has happened since the release of the movie.
The ardent way that the fishermen protected the docks as well as the surrounding hills from trespassers made me extremely distrustful of them. It seemed as if they knew that they were doing something wrong and that others disapproved. And they were right, when I found out that 23,000 dolphins were killed yearly in Japan I was shocked. For an endangered species I found that number to be surprising. Also the reasoning that Japan gave for why they were killing dolphins and whales was absolutely absurd and I am glad that it was included in the film. The Japanese IWC representative stated that the whales and dolphins were a threat to the fishing industry. Although this is logically sound it is the opposite of how people should be thinking when it comes to how we effect the environment.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? O'Barry's argument that the IWC was a “toothless” organization seemed to be influenced too much by his own pathos towards the whole situation. One has to remember that the IWC were the ones who banned whaling in the first place and they have prevented Japan from overturning the ban since 1986, even as they bought the support of poorer countries. Another argument that I found lacking substance was when O'Barry complained about how there were no other activists that were interested in Taiji. With how much security and government support behind the project I am not at all surprised. As shown in the film others did try to attempt and uncover the truth behind Taiji's dolphin slaughters but they were all unsuccessful. There are still activists that are fighting it, just in areas where it is easier to get footage.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? The first thing I did after watching the film was to visit the website that they had at the end of the movie. The site was very well laid out. It compels its visitors to spread the word, if only by word of mouth. It also has links to its Japanese website, ways to write politicians as well as a news tab with up-to-date information on the dolphin hunting situation. The other piece of information that I wanted to find out was how many dolphins were killed yearly worldwide so that I could compare those figures to how many are killed solely in Japan. What didn't find was a world figure for how many dolphins are killed annually, but what I did learn was that there are a surprising amount of other countries that hunt dolphins. These countries tend to be less noticed that Japan because they usually have smaller economies or/and catch much less than Japan does. These places include the Solomon Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Peru. http://www.apa-apa.net/kirio/kirio-e.htm http://www.highnorth.no/statistik/faroewhale.htm http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/sp03/0603p9.htm http://www.takepart.com/thecove/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_drive_hunting#cite_note-33
What audiences does the film best address? Due to how the film was put together in a way that made it very easy and exciting to watch I find that this movie can also serve a wider audience than many other sustainability documentaries. One could argue that the graphic nature of the penguin slaughter would be a put-off, but just think about how much violence our kids are exposed to on a daily basis. The reason that this film is able to reach a wide audience is because it is about one specific sustainability issue and does not talk about how little hope there is for future generations. It is also able to get its point across without having to listen to all of the data and statistics. This film's main audience was obviously the IWC representatives as well as people with power in countries other than Japan. By showing the film to this specific audience a lot of political pressure could be levered against Japan to stop the atrocities.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? The film could have talked more about how the dolphin situation was around the globe or how the dolphin population has been decreasing. I feel that they did this the film would lose some of the focus it had on the activists in Taiji. They did mention how Japan was worried about dwindling supplies of fish as well as how a similar town to Taiji had to stop hunting dolphins because they had killed all of them. These points could have been accented a little, but I feel that if the film went into them too deeply it would have taken away from the range of audiences.
Does the annotation describe points of intervention suggested by the film? The creators of the film knew that there was not much that people could do on an individual basis so they came up with one. With, what I thought was an ingenious move, the director added a number to text as well as posted the website that showed how one could help. Although these are just money donations it is a way for people to feel as though they are making a difference. The other point of inventions that O'Barry suggested were ones that were a bit more radical than the normal person would be willing to participate in.
Director: Louie Psihoyos
Released: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The movie argues that we need to crack down better on illegal whale and dolphin fishing. This film is about the atrocities that happen to dolphins and porpoises all around the world. The film follows Richard O'Barry as he and a team of activists tear down the walls and expose Japan and their industry of dolphin hunting. Although most of the film takes place in Taiji, it is really about the overall problem of whale and dolphin fishing.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The first sustainability problem that I noticed while watching the film, besides the dolphin killing, was how Japan decorated their towns. Many towns involved in the dolphin and whale business have murals and art dedicated to how much they love the animals. They are deceiving the citizens of Japan into thinking that because they love whales so much the fishermen and government would never harm the animals on purpose. This is seen later when O'Barry interviews passersby in Tokyo and none of them knew anything about what was going on with the dolphins in Taiji and other parts of Japan.
As the film progressed the audience is able to learn more about Richard O'Barry, the leading activist in the film. As it turns out he was the person who was most responsible for starting the whole movement to capture dolphins for the entertainment industry. The modern image of dolphins did not develop until after the movie Flipper, for which O'Barry trained the dolphins. After Flipper's success more and more zoos, entertainment parks and movie sets around the world began requesting dolphins. This success with making money from selling dolphin and whale shows led to the need for Japan's dolphin market.
Although it is not a sustainability problem in the more traditional sense that we cannot do anything to change it, I would like to argue that the fact that dolphins and whales follow the same migratory route every year is a sustainability problem for them. It makes is much easier for humans to catch and kill them because their location at certain times of year is predictable. If dolphins instead took varying routes they would be harder to catch leading to fewer deaths per year.
In this film the landscape of Taiji was a huge sustainability problem. If not for the landscaping and the hostility of the local fishermen the secret of Taiji's dolphin slaughters would have been able to be uncovered much sooner by activists. The activists also had to be careful not to do anything illegal while in Taiji due to the local government and police being so eager to rid foreigners from the areas around the dolphin killing areas.
The Japanese government also plays it's part in this story. They are the ones who are supporting and hiding this industry. They even went as far as to buy poorer nations' support in the IWC (International Whaling Commission). With their support they were able to delay new laws that prevented the killing of dolphins and they also have been attempting to reinstate the ability of countries to whale. The Japanese government also allows dolphin to be sold with or labeled as other, larger whales. This is not only bad for the whales but also dangerous to Japanese citizens. Ever since the Industrial Revolution mercury levels in the oceans have been increasing by 1-3% annually. As of now there are 2000ppm of mercury in dolphins. This can and has been proven to lead to mercury poisoning.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling?
What I really liked about this film compared to the other ones that I have watched was that, for the most part, this film was easy to watch. I found that they not only managed to get a very important issue across but that they did it in a more mainstream. Besides having better film editors and a higher budget I really liked how O’Barry would explained how he transformed into an activist. It made him seem less radical and more ‘normal’. It also helped build his ethos, giving the audience more reason to come to see from his point of view.
As O’Barry had predicted the combined audio and video footage was what got me most turned towards his cause. If they had only been able to show the footage that they were capturing at the beginning of the film I probably wouldn’t have bothered to rise to their call to action. But by being able to plant the hidden cameras as well as the underwater one I found that the viewer gets the whole picture. Because of this I both texted the number at the end of the film as well as visited the website to see what all has happened since the release of the movie.
The ardent way that the fishermen protected the docks as well as the surrounding hills from trespassers made me extremely distrustful of them. It seemed as if they knew that they were doing something wrong and that others disapproved. And they were right, when I found out that 23,000 dolphins were killed yearly in Japan I was shocked. For an endangered species I found that number to be surprising. Also the reasoning that Japan gave for why they were killing dolphins and whales was absolutely absurd and I am glad that it was included in the film. The Japanese IWC representative stated that the whales and dolphins were a threat to the fishing industry. Although this is logically sound it is the opposite of how people should be thinking when it comes to how we effect the environment.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
O'Barry's argument that the IWC was a “toothless” organization seemed to be influenced too much by his own pathos towards the whole situation. One has to remember that the IWC were the ones who banned whaling in the first place and they have prevented Japan from overturning the ban since 1986, even as they bought the support of poorer countries. Another argument that I found lacking substance was when O'Barry complained about how there were no other activists that were interested in Taiji. With how much security and government support behind the project I am not at all surprised. As shown in the film others did try to attempt and uncover the truth behind Taiji's dolphin slaughters but they were all unsuccessful. There are still activists that are fighting it, just in areas where it is easier to get footage.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out?
The first thing I did after watching the film was to visit the website that they had at the end of the movie. The site was very well laid out. It compels its visitors to spread the word, if only by word of mouth. It also has links to its Japanese website, ways to write politicians as well as a news tab with up-to-date information on the dolphin hunting situation.
The other piece of information that I wanted to find out was how many dolphins were killed yearly worldwide so that I could compare those figures to how many are killed solely in Japan. What didn't find was a world figure for how many dolphins are killed annually, but what I did learn was that there are a surprising amount of other countries that hunt dolphins. These countries tend to be less noticed that Japan because they usually have smaller economies or/and catch much less than Japan does. These places include the Solomon Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Peru.
http://www.apa-apa.net/kirio/kirio-e.htm
http://www.highnorth.no/statistik/faroewhale.htm
http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/sp03/0603p9.htm
http://www.takepart.com/thecove/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_drive_hunting#cite_note-33
What audiences does the film best address?
Due to how the film was put together in a way that made it very easy and exciting to watch I find that this movie can also serve a wider audience than many other sustainability documentaries. One could argue that the graphic nature of the penguin slaughter would be a put-off, but just think about how much violence our kids are exposed to on a daily basis. The reason that this film is able to reach a wide audience is because it is about one specific sustainability issue and does not talk about how little hope there is for future generations. It is also able to get its point across without having to listen to all of the data and statistics. This film's main audience was obviously the IWC representatives as well as people with power in countries other than Japan. By showing the film to this specific audience a lot of political pressure could be levered against Japan to stop the atrocities.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film could have talked more about how the dolphin situation was around the globe or how the dolphin population has been decreasing. I feel that they did this the film would lose some of the focus it had on the activists in Taiji. They did mention how Japan was worried about dwindling supplies of fish as well as how a similar town to Taiji had to stop hunting dolphins because they had killed all of them. These points could have been accented a little, but I feel that if the film went into them too deeply it would have taken away from the range of audiences.
Does the annotation describe points of intervention suggested by the film?
The creators of the film knew that there was not much that people could do on an individual basis so they came up with one. With, what I thought was an ingenious move, the director added a number to text as well as posted the website that showed how one could help. Although these are just money donations it is a way for people to feel as though they are making a difference. The other point of inventions that O'Barry suggested were ones that were a bit more radical than the normal person would be willing to participate in.